Get server info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately implies a read-only operation ('Get details') and enumerates the returned fields, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior (e.g., if the server ID is invalid), or whether the output follows a specific format. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get details about a Discord server') and then lists the specific returned fields. There is no redundant or irrelevant content—every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully described parameter, the description is quite complete: it specifies the action, target resource, and the returned attributes. It lacks details about output format or error handling, but the mentioned fields provide sufficient context for most AI agent usage, especially given the presence of sibling tools for broader operations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes the sole parameter serverId as 'The Discord server (guild) ID', which is already clear and provides 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details about a Discord server'), listing the exact attributes returned (name, description, member count, owner). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers (which lists all servers) and send_message (which sends messages), so the purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly sets the context: use this tool when you need details about a specific Discord server. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_servers for enumerating server IDs. This is a minor gap, so it's one point away from a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.